Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (2.18 seconds)

S.Ajija Begum vs S.Aisha Bevi (Died) on 3 March, 2017

11.In the case of Smt.Surjit Kaur v. Gurcharan Singh reported in AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 18 wherein Section of 23 of the Indian Evidence Act has been reiterated that if an admission is made upon an express condition that evidence regarding it would not be given or under circumstances from which the Court could infer that the parties had agreed that the evidence regarding it would not be given, then such an admission would not be relevant. In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the letter containing admission of cruelty and seeking apology which was during the period of negotiations of compromise in a petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was held to be a privileged document and that the same cannot be taken as an admission of cruelty. In the absence of any other evidence to prove the source for the documents Ex.B2 and B3, the document Ex.A12 cannot be relied upon to hold that the third item of suit properties was acquired only by the savings of the plaintiff's father namely the husband of first defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Sri Bauribandhu Mohanty And Anr. vs Sri Suresh Chandra Mohanty And Ors. on 23 July, 1991

"xx xx xx. In any case, this letter, admittedly, was written during the period when the compromise talks going on. The inference drawn by the learned Judge from all these circumstances was that the letter was written at a time when the parties had agreed that no evidence would be given regarding it. That being so, the case will be covered by the second condition laid down in Section 23, quoted above, and as such, the husband could claim privilege regarding the same.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1